patrick.net

Regarding corporations who pay federal tax, sure give them 1 vote.

xrpb11a says

I am referring to "Federal Income Taxpayers", to be clear.

david1 says

xrpb11a says

Federal taxes, you should get to vote in federal elections...

So this means Federal Income Taxpayers and Federal Payroll taxpayers will vote, right? Plus corporations and executors of estates...

I can't believe we're even debating whether or not a person should have to show some kind of ID in order to vote.

It just shows how politicized everything has become.

Us vs. Them! Horay for our side!

Don't we already have these ID's? Aren't they called Drivers Licsenses? Most states require an ID even for people who can't drive, do they not?

xrpb11a says

I am referring to "Federal Income Taxpayers", to be clear.

Oh I know you are: obvisouly my point is then there is going to be a significantly large portion of federal "citizens" who pay payroll taxes but do not pay income taxes.

Therefore, they are taxed without representation...the American Revolution used this as a rallying cry.

The fact that you chose to include corporation (which are not citizens by definition) but exclude foreign visitors or illegal aliens because they are not by definition citizens shows how weak your argument is. Choose one. Either citizenship is a prerequisite to voting or it is not.

If it is, why are you so hell bent on excluding payroll tax payers who do not pay income taxes from voting in federal elections? Taxes collected from both sources go into the general fund anyway...

If you want to segment it that way - you cannot talk about cutting "entitlements" as a way to shore up budget deficits. Good luck collecting enough Federal Income taxes to pay for the military, interest, etc. without borrowing from the Trust Funds.

If they have paid federal payroll taxes , yet do not pay income tax, is not the federal payroll tax returned via a refund? In essence, they have not paid federal taxes.

david1 says

xrpb11a says

I am referring to "Federal Income Taxpayers", to be clear.

Oh I know you are: obvisouly my point is then there is going to be a significantly large portion of federal "citizens" who pay payroll taxes but do not pay income taxes.

Therefore, they are taxed without representation...the American Revolution used this as a rallying cry.

xrpb11a says

yet do not pay income tax, is not the federal payroll tax returned via a refund? In essence, they have not paid federal taxes.

No.

I included corporations because you referenced them in your initial statement. It matters not to me whether they are included or excluded.
I'm fine with expanding the "citizen" requirement to include US corporations...or leave it at 'citizen'.

david1 says

The fact that you chose to include corporation (which are not citizens by definition) but exclude foreign visitors or illegal aliens because they are not by definition citizens shows how weak your argument is. Choose one. Either citizenship is a prerequisite to voting or it is not.

freak80 says

Don't we already have these ID's? Aren't they called Drivers Licsenses? Most states require an ID even for people who can't drive, do they not?

Actually, no. For example, my 90 year old mom hasn't had a valid driver's license in 5 years. Her passport expired 2 years ago. If she lived in PA she would have to somehow get to the dmv, wait in line (in PA the lines and wait are long in the big cities) in order to vote. Luckily, she lives elsewhere and can show a utility bill with her name on it.

There was/is no proven problem with voter fraud (by dems or republicans) anywhere in the country. So laws like the one in PA are merely making it more of a hassle to vote for the poor (no car) and the elderly.

If the republican controlled state government in PA had proof that voter fraud was happening (they don't) but still wanted to make sure all of those without government issued picture IDs were still able to participate, they would have given this a slower roll out.

Even the republican appointed judged who refused to overturn this acknowledged that several hundred thousand legitimate citizens(mostly democrats) would probably not get to vote. All for a non-existent problem. Sound fair to you?

xrpb11a says

I am referring to "Federal Income Taxpayers", to be clear.

david1 says

xrpb11a says

Federal taxes, you should get to vote in federal elections...

So this means Federal Income Taxpayers and Federal Payroll taxpayers will vote, right? Plus corporations and executors of estates...

Wait, so you are saying that someone pays only payroll taxes to the Federal government gets no vote in Federal elections?

No.
I am referring to "Federal Income Tax".
I am not referring to "Payroll Tax".

leoj707 says

Wait, so you are saying that someone pays only payroll taxes to the Federal government gets no vote in Federal elections?

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

leoj707 says

xrpb11a says

I am referring to "Federal Income Taxpayers", to be clear.

david1 says

xrpb11a says

Federal taxes, you should get to vote in federal elections...

So this means Federal Income Taxpayers and Federal Payroll taxpayers will vote, right? Plus corporations and executors of estates...

Wait, so you are saying that someone pays only payroll taxes to the Federal government gets no vote in Federal elections?

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

So I guess Romney won't be voting.

It's all irrelevant anyway. With the onset of electronic voting, the software engineers will be deciding our elections from here on out...
Who else is capable of deciphering binary code to determine if 'corruption' is embedded..

If you believe Uncle Harry....

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

So I guess Romney won't be voting.

Romney paid over 3 mil in fed tax in 2010, so he would be eligible to vote in 2010-2011, or however the logistics work out for that approach.

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

So I guess Romney won't be voting.

xrpb11a says

If you believe Uncle Harry....

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

So I guess Romney won't be voting.

Reid vs Romney: A Mormon catfight!

xrpb11a says

How so?

Like this:

Single, no deductions, 1 exemption
$7.86 hr, 35 hrs/wk, 40 wks/yr = $11,000 gross income
Standard deduction =-$5800
Personal Exemption = -$3700

Taxable Income = $1500, taxes owed(10%) = $150
Earned Income Tax Credit = -$202.
Total Federal Income Tax = -$52.

Payroll Taxes, employee portion = $11,000 * (.042+.0145) = $621.50

Net Taxes, Employee portion, $569.50.

Payroll Taxes, Employer portion = $11,000 * (.062+.0145) = $841.50.

Total net taxes paid to Federal Govt. = $1411, 12.8% of income, slightly less than % Mitt Romney paid.

QED.

xrpb11a says

No.

I am referring to "Federal Income Tax".

I am not referring to "Payroll Tax".

leoj707 says

Wait, so you are saying that someone pays only payroll taxes to the Federal government gets no vote in Federal elections?

At the state and local level you seem to let just about any kind of tax allow for voting. Why the inconsistency with federal taxes?

It seems like you are arguing, not that to get the vote one must pay taxes, but to get the vote one must pay a tax selected by you as "approved" to allow the vote.

What if a federal sales tax was enacted? Would that go on the list of taxes that one must pay, but still not get to vote?

My intention is that: If you pay into the system at a certain level, you get to vote at that level.

I should have worded it that way in the beginning.

leoj707 says

xrpb11a says

No.

I am referring to "Federal Income Tax".

I am not referring to "Payroll Tax".

leoj707 says

Wait, so you are saying that someone pays only payroll taxes to the Federal government gets no vote in Federal elections?

At the state and local level you seem to let just about any kind of tax allow for voting. Why the inconsistency with federal taxes?

It seems like you are arguing, not that to get the vote one must pay taxes, but to get the vote one must pay a tax selected by you as "approved" to allow the vote.

What if a federal sales tax was enacted? Would that go on the list of taxes that one must pay, but still not get to vote?

You guys would complain if ICE agents were stationed at the voting polls. You would say it disenfranchised voters so they didn't turn out.

xrpb11a says

My intention is that: If you pay into the system at a certain level, you get to vote at that level.
I should have worded it that way in the beginning.

So we are back to the beginning: You aren't going to except anyone from voting with this rule. Nearly everyone pays taxes at some level.

david1 says

So we are back to the beginning: You aren't going to except anyone from voting with this rule. Nearly everyone pays taxes at some level.

Yes, and even if the Ryan plan passes Romney -- rather than pay zero -- could voluntarily pay $1 in income tax.

Anyone, could file and pay just $1, or 1¢ for that matter.

leoj707 says

Yes, and even if the Ryan plan passes Romney -- rather than pay zero -- could voluntarily pay $1 in income tax.

If the Ryan plan passes Romney will at least have to pay tax on his Presidential Salary.

CaptainShuddup says

You guys would complain if ICE agents were stationed at the voting polls. You would say it disenfranchised voters so they didn't turn out.

You're damn right I'd complain. It would be a total waste money, since there is no illegal immigrant voting problem.

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

What the hell is special about income tax as opposed to any other form of money going to the federal government? That's just bullshit.

Illegal aliens and dead people will not be able to vote, as they are now.

People with no income will not pay federal income tax, thus would not be eligible for voting for federal offices.

david1 says

xrpb11a says

My intention is that: If you pay into the system at a certain level, you get to vote at that level.

I should have worded it that way in the beginning.

So we are back to the beginning: You aren't going to except anyone from voting with this rule. Nearly everyone pays taxes at some level.

Those are details that can be worked out...ie. you must pay at least 1% of your gross income in federal income tax to be eligible to vote. ( Just an example )

leoj707 says

david1 says

So we are back to the beginning: You aren't going to except anyone from voting with this rule. Nearly everyone pays taxes at some level.

Yes, and even if the Ryan plan passes Romney -- rather than pay zero -- could voluntarily pay $1 in income tax.

Anyone, could file and pay just $1, or 1¢ for that matter.

Well, he paid over 3 million in federal income taxes in 2010, so he's used to paying taxes....

david1 says

leoj707 says

Yes, and even if the Ryan plan passes Romney -- rather than pay zero -- could voluntarily pay $1 in income tax.

If the Ryan plan passes Romney will at least have to pay tax on his Presidential Salary.

If that were the case, democrats would not be objecting to voter ID laws.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314905/illegal-immigrants-illegal-votes-hans-von-spakovsky

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-foster/democrats-benefit-from-illegal-immigrants-voting_b_1418523.html

for starters....

rooemoore says

CaptainShuddup says

You guys would complain if ICE agents were stationed at the voting polls. You would say it disenfranchised voters so they didn't turn out.

You're damn right I'd complain. It would be a total waste money, since there is no illegal immigrant voting problem.

I may be wrong, but I think "income tax" goes directly to funding government operations, whereas all other taxes are targeted to specific projects...ie social security, workers comp, etc..etc..

bob2356 says

xrpb11a says

I am saying: If you pay federal income tax, you get to vote in a federal election.

What the hell is special about income tax as opposed to any other form of money going to the federal government? That's just bullshit.

xrpb11a says

Those are details that can be worked out...ie. you must pay at least 1% of your gross income in federal income tax to be eligible to vote. ( Just an example )

Plenty of foreign corporations pay US Federal Tax .. but they should no vote in our election..

Foreigners are subjects of foreign governments.. they too should NOT vote in our election. The US constitution is pretty clear on who can vote.. US Citizens ONLY!

Pure stupidity to hinge voting rights on if YOU pay US Tax...

I agree.
I rescind my comment about corporations having voting rights due to paying US taxes.

thomaswong.1986 says

xrpb11a says

Those are details that can be worked out...ie. you must pay at least 1% of your gross income in federal income tax to be eligible to vote. ( Just an example )

Plenty of foreign corporations pay US Federal Tax .. but they should no vote in our election..

Foreigners are subjects of foreign governments.. they too should NOT vote in our election. The US constitution is pretty clear on who can vote.. US Citizens ONLY!

Pure stupidity to hinge voting rights on if YOU pay US Tax...

I like the idea of a federal sales tax to replace income tax.

If that came about, I would go back to supporting "citizens with photo ID" as eligible candidates to vote.

leoj707 says

What if a federal sales tax was enacted? Would that go on the list of taxes that one must pay, but still not get to vote?

xrpb11a says

If it takes you more than 10 weeks to mozy down to your local DMV and have your picture taken, you can't be taken as a serious voter in the first place.

That's not really the point.

It's just a fact that if people who don't have a license have to make it to the DMV in the next 10 weeks to be able to vote, some significant number of them will not get it done, even though they would have gotten the much easier task of going to the polls and voting on election day done.

A costly solution, but for one time only:

At each polling station have set up a photo ID service desk. For this election only given the short time involved.

Eligible people can kill two birds with one stone.

After this election, they would have 2 years to get it done.

marcus says

xrpb11a says

If it takes you more than 10 weeks to mozy down to your local DMV and have your picture taken, you can't be taken as a serious voter in the first place.

That's not really the point.

It's just a fact that if people who don't have a license have to make it to the DMV in the next 10 weeks to be able to vote, some significant number of them will not get it done, even though they would have gotten the much easier task of going to the polls and voting on election day done.

xrpb11a says

Eligible people can kill two birds with one stone.

After this election, they would have 2 years to get it done.

You are missing the whole point of the law:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/EuOT1bRYdK8

The video can be interpreted several ways..

* restricting voter eligibility will help the republicans. ( preferred interpretation of democrats )

* eliminating illegal voting will show the majority of legal voters in PA to be republicans, which will result in a win. ( preferred interpretation of republicans )

Pick your poison.

rooemoore says

xrpb11a says

Eligible people can kill two birds with one stone.

After this election, they would have 2 years to get it done.

You are missing the whole point of the law:

xrpb11a says

The video can be interpreted several ways..

* restricting voter eligibility will help the republicans. ( preferred interpretation of democrats )

* eliminating illegal voting will show the majority of legal voters in PA to be republicans, which will result in a win. ( preferred interpretation of republicans )

Pick your poison.

Well, I guess we have to go with the former since, as the Republicans defending the law against the ACLU stated this:

“There have been no investigations of prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states,” according to official state papers sent to the court.

Counterpoint.

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

up to 3% illegal voters in just one US court??

rooemoore says

Well, I guess we have to go with the former since, as the Republicans defending the law against the ACLU stated this:

“There have been no investigations of prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states,” according to official state papers sent to the court.

xrpb11a says

* eliminating illegal voting will show the majority of legal voters in PA to be republicans, which will result in a win. ( preferred interpretation of republicans )

Really ?

So in other words, republicans are all retards that have no interest in facts ?

I guess you could be right, if you were to put it that way. But tell me this. Do you think those who pushed for the laws did it out of sincere belief that there is a problem with that type of fraud (impersonating a registered voter other than themself) ?

I remember back when one out of 5 or so things you said actually sounded halfway intelligent (under your previous identity Wrtthfk or whatever it was).

PPete says

So lets get out the propaganda that it's because of vote rigging.

It's more like lets be awake and prevent it this time.

If you were awake in 2004, you understand there was probably some funny business in Ohio.